Talk:List of Anolis lizards

winstoni or winstonorum

I changed Anolis oculatus winstoni to Anolis oculatus winstonorum for several reasons. Firstly, "The Reptile Database" in its list of Anolis species and subspecies uses winstonorum. Secondly, "The Reptile Database" also shows in the synonomy for Anolis oculatus: "winstoni Lazell, 1962" and "winstonorum, Lazell, 1962". Thirdly, "Dahmstierleben.de" in its Anolis list has winstonorum. Fourthly, Michels and Bauer in their paper (Michels & Bauer. 2004. Some Corrections to the Scientific Names of Amphibians and Reptiles. Bonner zoologisch Beiträge, Band 52(2004), Heft1/2, Seiten 83-94.) state that since Lazell named the taxon for Mr. Winston and his family, the genitive plural, winstonorum, is required. And fifthly and finally, I saw a reference to a ruling by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on this.

However, that having been said, and since someone changed the name back to "winstoni", I've searched for that ruling with no success. So I'm agreeable to winstoni. Unfortunately I've never met Lazell. I don't even know if he's still living. If he is, I'd be curious to know his opinion on this controversy. 74.109.236.194 (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for the websites you've mentioned, but luckily Lazell wrote down his opinion. I think you have grounds for noting a synonym, but regardless of what Lazell grammatically should have named it, he used winstoni and so has every researcher focusing on Anolis oculatus that I have read. So regardless of their Latin skills, I wouldn't take Michels and Bauer as more authoritative on the species than Lazell, Malhotra and Thorpe, Schwartz and Henderson... As for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, I'd like 1) a citation regarding this and 2) to see a wider discussion (maybe on the Reptile or Animal Wikiproject talk pages) on whether their determinations are accepted as authoritative even if specialists haven't (yet) acknowledged the change. postdlf (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting! In 1962 Lazell specifically states he formulates the name in honour of "Charles A. Winston, and his family" (pg. 473) -it's pedantic lawyering by Michels and Bauer, but that does mean Lazell formulated the specific epithet in the wrong grammatical case (plural, men+woman =-orum as the correct case). The IUZN does not need to make a special ruling regarding this (which, yes, is ALWAYS automatically considered authoritative, and the "specialists" are then simply considered wrong -the system needs rules to function): The name is in error following articles 31.1.1, 31.1.2 and 31.1.3, and must be emended (a "justified emendation", art.32) -there's no two ways about it. As a justified emendation The Reptile Database is completely correct in attributing the correct name to Lazell, and not Michels and Bauer (otherwise it would be a "junior synonym"). Lazell's original incorrect name is then considered a lapsus (oops, just realised the lapsus I've linking to for over a year now is something else than what is meant by that word in zoological taxonomy -see orth. var., which is really a term in botanic taxonomy).

Obviously Schwartz and Henderson were unaware when they published before 2004 -not everyone is interested in, or has the time to examine, the applicability of names against the minutiae of IUZN code. Malhotra and Thorpe, however, simply didn't do their research properly, they should have followed Michels and Bauer (at least in their work after 2004), and should be faulted for that! These two have made at least one other rather glaringly stupid taxonomical error regarding Anolis oculatus, if Wikipedia is to be trusted. I will add the correct name to the synonymy. Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)